LGA calls for consolidated legal safeguards for police use of facial recognition and biometric technologies

In its response to the government’s consultation on a new legal framework for law enforcement on the use of biometrics and facial recognitionresponse to the government’s consultation on a new legal framework for law enforcement on the use of biometrics and facial recognition, the LGA said that the current patchwork of legislation and guidance is no longer fit for purpose as technologies evolve and become more widely deployed in public spaces.

Councils who work closely with police on community safety need clarity and consistency to reassure residents that intrusive technologies are used lawfully, proportionately and transparently. A unified framework, it said, would help the public understand when and how biometric tools can be used, strengthen local democratic accountability, and ensure that safeguards keep pace with rapid technological change.

The LGA also emphasised that any framework must be flexible enough to incorporate new technologies without requiring Parliament to legislate afresh each time. It also recorded concerns about the oversight of non‑UK‑manufactured systems that may not meet data protection standards.

The consultation also sought views on the extension of a new framework to ‘Inferential technologies’ - that analyse body movements or expressions to infer emotions or intentions and ‘Object‑based identification, which track individuals via clothing, personal belongings or vehicles. The LGA supports this extension of the framework to these categories which, it warned, carry significant privacy implications and could undermine community confidence if left unregulated.

Although supportive of the use of biometric technologies, the LGA’s response also highlighted the potential risks that come with its wider deployment, including the potential for misidentification and stereotyping, particularly for young people and minority groups, and the loss of community trust in law enforcement technology.

For these reasons, the LGA supported using the “seriousness of harm” as a key test for when police can acquire, retain or use biometric technologies. Factors such as the nature of the offence, imminence of threat, vulnerability of victims and potential for escalation should all be considered, it says.

The LGA backed requiring senior police authorisation for certain deployments and says independent approval should be mandatory in high‑risk or exceptional circumstances, such as use at protests, in schools or in sensitive public spaces.

It also cautiously supported allowing police to search other government databases, such as passport or immigration records, but only for serious offences, safeguarding cases or to identify injured or deceased individuals. Such searches must be tightly controlled, with clear authorisation, audit trails and strict purpose limitations, it said.

Support for a single independent oversight body
The LGA’s submission was supportive of the creation of a single regulator overseeing multiple codes of practice would provide clarity for councils, police and the public. Such a body, it said, must be properly resourced and have powers to:

- Publish binding codes of practice
- Investigate misuse, rights infringements or security breaches
- Issue compliance notices and seek injunctions
- Set scientific and technical standards
- Receive complaints and publish annual reports
- Decide which new technologies should fall within the framework

The oversight body should also monitor bias, engage with local authorities and communities, and provide training and guidance to law enforcement. The LGA also said that new rules were required to ensure rigorous testing for accuracy and bias, minimum quality standards, strict data protection controls, and clear protocols for deployment in sensitive contexts. It also calls for mandatory training for officers using or authorising biometric systems.

While the LGA supports a consistent framework across the public sector, it warned that councils would require “new burdens funding” if they are brought within scope of the regulations.

Throughout its submission, the LGA stressed that maintaining community trust is essential. A clear, flexible and well‑regulated framework- backed by independent oversight - would help ensure that biometric technologies are used in ways that protect both public safety and fundamental rights.